Mr. Ely. Now, directing your attention to page 8, which is a summary court memorandum: this relates, I believe, to his first court-martial, and in general is self-explanatory. I want, however, to ask you about one sentence which to me seems to be in error.
According to the notation made here on page 8, under the title "Convening Authorities Action Dated," it states that that part of Oswald's sentence confining him at hard labor for 20 days would be suspended "for 6 months at which time, unless the suspension is sooner vacated, the sentence to confinement at hard labor for 20 days will be remitted without further action."
However, turning our attention down to Section 11, page 8, it was noted that on June 27, 1958, which would be the time of his second court-martial, "Confinement at hard labor for 28 days vacated on June 27, 1958."
So the way it is worded it says that the confinement would be vacated. Am I correct in assuming, Colonel, that what it really means to say is that the suspension of the sentence was vacated?
Colonel Folsom. This is correct.
However, there appears to be an error here, since the original sentence was for 20 days, and not 28 days, as shown under the subject entry.
Mr. Ely. Right.
So I suppose we have a typographical error, substituting 28 for 20 and we also have a misleading sentence in that it implies that the sentence was vacated rather than that the suspension of the sentence was vacated.
Colonel Folsom. This is correct.
Mr. Ely. However, Colonel, what did happen is that when he was court-martialed the second time, they then sentenced him to both the sentence for the second court-martial and at that time gave him the sentence that he received in connection with the first court-martial?